Live data from Hacker News

I am worried about Bun

wwj.dev

311–320 of 368 posts

Re: I am worried about Bun

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Node supports auto loading .env and also supports sqlite

Sure, but at least on Node 22 I think I have to pass `--env-file=.env` option to make it pick up .env.

There is also 1 line to load .env in node without passing an argument

Re: I am worried about Bun

#312

I disagree with the overall premise: Before the acquisition, Bun had to figure out how to monetize at some point. Now, even though their parent company does some shitty practices with their other software (claude code), it's a stretch to assume this will also translate into making Bun worse: Being worried makes sense but I remain optimistic about Bun. Especially given the context of both of these different context: C…

I disagree with the overall premise: Before the acquisition, GitHub had to figure out how to monetize at some point. Now, even though their parent company does some shitty practices with their other software (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, MS Windows), it's a stretch to assume this will also translate into making GitHub worse: Being worried makes sense but I remain optimistic about GitHub.

I am asuming you are European as I (I live in the Netherlands) have not seen any outage of GitHub as well...

Re: I am worried about Bun

#313

I disagree with the overall premise: Before the acquisition, Bun had to figure out how to monetize at some point. Now, even though their parent company does some shitty practices with their other software (claude code), it's a stretch to assume this will also translate into making Bun worse: Being worried makes sense but I remain optimistic about Bun. Especially given the context of both of these different context: C…

It's interesting how quickly people buy the "abuse" line of thinking. We understood (and knew for a long time) that the large AI labs are not monetarily profiting from subscription users that make heavy use of their subscription. That is independent of which agent/harness is used. The fair/real price for profitable use is the pay per use token pricing. These labs play the game of trying to kill competition in the har…

> Useful models are getting smaller and cheaper to run every year and it has hit a threshold at which we will see continued development of third party harnesses even without the userbase of subscription users.

As of May 2026, how much money do I need to spend to buy hardware to have a local model that is 80% as good as SOTA services for assisting me in writing code?

As for that 80%, how many minutes per LOC will I be waiting, and how many attempts per query will I be wasting while I wait for it to come up with something sensible?

Re: I am worried about Bun

#314
Bun is basically a lost case in the same way that claude code is. Many people love both and thats fine as long it is their personal choice. But freedom loving orgs can never ever depend on either for anything ever or build anything on top. The main problem in this picture is projects who don’t understand or remember the internet explorer hell are using bun only features to a degree that you cannot just switch. Even opencode who should have the biggest aversion to depend on anthropic is doing this and it drives me insane. Have you all lost your mind or let your agents blindly lock you into whatever hell wants to own you?

Re: I am worried about Bun

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I interpret "a machine superintelligence" as "a classroom of 300IQ humans," I'm not really sure how this is true? You still have material and energy constraints, you can't think your way out of those.

For the concrete problem we're discussing, you can hack your competitors out of existence, replace all of your knowledge workers to shed costs, hyperoptimise your logistics, etc. It's not just intelligence, it's speed and scale. Bostrom's Superintelligence (2014) is a bit of a dreary read, and I didn't finish it, but it pulls no punches about the leverage that a superintelligence might have in our highly-connected wo…

> For the concrete problem we're discussing, you can hack your competitors out of existence, replace all of your knowledge workers to shed costs, hyperoptimise your logistics, etc. It's not just intelligence, it's speed and scale.

For the concrete problem we're discussing, that hypothetical belongs in a Marvel movie, not reality. In the real world, you can't 'hack your competitors out of existence', and you'll be going to prison very quickly for trying this sort of thing.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#316
post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

positive ROI for customers?

AI is already in commercials, TV, and movies. Companies for the most part just don't tell you because the reaction of the general public is "eww, AI". It's already here in a big way. You just won't be told about it until the public lightens up on the "AI hate".

I think the vagueness of statements like this is why a lot of people (myself included) are just so very skeptical. Surely some company wants to brag about their use. I don’t doubt it’s found its way into certain spaces, but by and large a lot of the “big” claims have been demonstrated to be borderline fraudulent. That Brad Pitt/Tom Cruise AI fight is fake. It is misleading. Taking existing green screen choreography and using AI to impose Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise’s faces is not what it is being sold as. Darren Aronofsky’s AI works are not good either. They can’t seem to hold a shot for more than a few seconds, why is that?

If the argument is that AI is being used in the background or for some VFX, sure, I’ll buy that. It’s just another tool, then. If it is being used to generate entire scenes, there’s no evidence of this, unless something like that atrocious holiday Coca-Cola commercial is a herald of our future.

As written, your claim is just handwavy. I get you might not be able to cite anything concrete due to NDAs or whatnot but, you also have to understand why a lot of people find this kinda unpersuasive.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#317
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the concrete problem we're discussing, you can hack your competitors out of existence, replace all of your knowledge workers to shed costs, hyperoptimise your logistics, etc. It's not just intelligence, it's speed and scale. Bostrom's Superintelligence (2014) is a bit of a dreary read, and I didn't finish it, but it pulls no punches about the leverage that a superintelligence might have in our highly-connected wo…

> For the concrete problem we're discussing, you can hack your competitors out of existence, replace all of your knowledge workers to shed costs, hyperoptimise your logistics, etc. It's not just intelligence, it's speed and scale. For the concrete problem we're discussing, that hypothetical belongs in a Marvel movie, not reality. In the real world, you can't 'hack your competitors out of existence', and you'll be goi…

I did say

> especially if you're willing to break the law / normal operating decorum

in my original post. If you have a superintelligence, you have something that can find and take advantage of every exploitation vector in parallel - technical, social, bureaucratic - and use that to destroy a company from the inside. A superintelligence that is subservient to its operator is an informational superweapon.

I agree that this sounds fanciful, but you can see what existing cyberattacks can do to organisations; it does not take that much imagination to gauge how much worse it could be when the process can be automated and scaled.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what particular way? I've been using Typescript a lot more recently (unfortunately XD) and I've found the native experience in Node to be totally fine.

Node's built-in profiler doesn't work with Typescript, which is one part of Node not natively supporting TS. Idk how it is in Bun, cause that made me abandon TS rather than abandoning Node.

Node supports ts natively now though.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#319
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also assuming that AGI is even possible. So far there is no evidence that this is actually doable over anything but billions of years (and even then we have no idea how nature really managed it). Edit: Meant to say AGI (superintelligence didn't make sense). Superintelligence is undefinable at the moment so even considering if it's possible or not is more of a philosophical thing/si-fi thought experiment than…

> So far there is no evidence that this is actually doable over anything but billions of years (and even then we have no idea how nature really managed it). "The brain is so mysterious and unique, that we should abandon all attempts to even try to apply results like the general approximation theorem to it and discard all signs that some approximation is happening." Why we don't see signs of intelligence in the univer…

No. To realize the possibility of powered flight one only needs to look at birds. AGI, on the other hand, is another word for God.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So far there is no evidence that this is actually doable over anything but billions of years (and even then we have no idea how nature really managed it). "The brain is so mysterious and unique, that we should abandon all attempts to even try to apply results like the general approximation theorem to it and discard all signs that some approximation is happening." Why we don't see signs of intelligence in the univer…

No. To realize the possibility of powered flight one only needs to look at birds. AGI, on the other hand, is another word for God.

Just define "general" as "as general as allowed by math, physics, and practical limitations." Or use a conventional reading of AGI as a human-level intelligence (which we, naturally, have a working example of).
Post reply on HN